Comprehensive coverage

Member of the Science Committee in the US Congress: Evolution is a lie from hell

Opinion: It's about the same as Beryatan being the chairman of the science committee in Israel. Oops. 

Paul Brown, Member of the US House of Representatives, 10th District of the State of Georgia
Paul Brown, Member of the US House of Representatives, 10th District of the State of Georgia

Congressman from Georgia, MD, states: "Evolution is a lie from hell"

Paul Brown (Broun), a congressman from Georgia and a member of the Congressional Science Committee, called evolution "a lie from hell" last October. "All this nonsense I was taught about evolution, embryology, the big bang theory - these are all lies straight from hell," Brown said at a conference of a Baptist church in Georgia. "These are lies that try to prevent us from understanding that we need Jesus as our savior." Brown claims that the earth is several thousand years old and that the universe was created in six days - because "this is what is written in the Bible."

The words drew sharp reactions from scientists and liberals, but the verbal skirmish that followed Brown's words was called "fun" by Brown's spokeswoman. This media frenzy will no doubt promote Congressman Brown who is seeking to run soon on behalf of the Republican Party for one of Georgia's two senatorial seats in the Senate. The state of Georgia in the south of the United States is part of the "Bible Belt" - those states in the southeast of the United States that are characterized by a poor, conservative and very religious population. Democrats rarely win elections there. If Brown is elected to the Senate, it seems that his presence will make the "Tea Party" people - including Michelle Beckman (retiring) and Rand Paul - look like a bunch of vegetarians from the sixties.

Brown is an extreme Republican, on the verge of libertarianism. He strongly opposes Obamacare, business regulation and federal taxation. He called Obama a "socialist" and compared Obama's activities to the activities of the Nazis and Communists (without considering the contradiction between the two).

Brown recently spoke to the "Zionist Organization of America" ​​(ZOA), the largest Zionist organization in the United States. Among other things he said: "I am a Christian who believes in the Bible. I believe that the only reason God loves America is our continued support of Israel. I am a proud Zionist-Christian. We read the same Bible as you - just a few more books [the New Testament]. As long as I am in Washington, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the United States supports Israel. I'm not saying that - God is saying that." These positions of Brown are the reason why many Jews in Georgia like him despite the traditional support of American Jews for the Democratic Party.

There are quite a few ignorant members of Congress, but Brown, who said "the Bible guides me in all my votes in Washington" and pledged that any legislation he promotes must be in accordance with the laws of the Bible, is also a member of the Congressional Science Committee. This is likened to an imaginary scenario in which a member of the Knesset who disbelieves in science and evolution will be the chairman of the science and technology committee of the Knesset in Israel - for example Moshe Gafni, who in an interview with "Calcalist" said: "The Torah contains all professions." We are in good company.

36 תגובות

  1. It is clear that evolution is a big lie,
    After all, it is clear that there is a creator of the world "the creation testifies to the creator"
    There is no plan without a planner,
    You don't have to be a genius to see such an ordered world
    and understand with your mind that there is someone who created it.
    The chance that one living cell will be created by chance is 14 and a million zeros.

  2. sympathetic
    He who can believe in God, can believe any stupid story. It was not for nothing that they found a connection between low intelligence and an unfounded belief.

  3. Sorry correction Ehud Amir
    But the idea is clear, you attack the ultra-Orthodox
    Accused of ignorance in science and they are really ignorant like
    Anyone who is not professionally engaged in the subject just like my father
    And Mr. Zvi Yanai and many more about you I do not know and would like to know

  4. My time is limited and if the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and the first humans a few hundred thousand years, only an idiot would waste his time reading a book that claims the opposite, because it is not an insignificant difference. And beyond that, if you seriously agree with any religious nonsense why don't you believe in the Greek gods, Jesus or Muhammad? Were they also religious people?

  5. Aaron,
    Following on from what you wrote about the matter of seriousness, do you agree with me that, in fact, only those with authority can refer to his claims?
    Do you agree with me that the only mechanism in which authorities are actually debating is the publication in scientific journals (and maybe also conferences, although in the end, a claim has to go through publication in a journal)?

  6. Why read in a book, which first shoots the arrow and then marks a target around it? And especially when this does not agree with any scientific findings. There are a lot of science fiction books, why should I read this one?

  7. Avi and Shmolik, the ability to have an opinion without reading the book at all is neither serious nor scientific, while the author of the book is a reputed professor of science and medicine.

  8. Aharon, how can you take seriously a claim that does not make sense in any way? Unlike the religious experts, the academics are not experts in everything, but in the specific field they are researching.

  9. Aaron,
    Do you accept his claims? Do you think there are artifacts in museums that show people lived alongside dinosaurs?
    Beyond that, you bring in someone who claims that there are findings in museums that state that there were dinosaurs at the time when humans lived and that on purpose, as in the connection theory, the scientists in the world ignore them (completely contrary to their character) so what exactly do you want to hear? There are endless websites that will explain when the dinosaurs lived and they will also say that Homo sapiens did not exist then.

  10. I didn't claim anything. I wanted a serious reference (in response to a recent book by a serious scientist) and not casual slogans from commenters.

  11. Aaron
    Regarding the claim that evolution is fundamentally disproved - I disagree. But it was interesting to read the rest of your comment.
    As for the innocent who responded to you, I suggest you just ignore him. Nothing serious came of it, and you certainly won't learn anything from it that you couldn't learn on your own by wandering through Wikipedia.

  12. Aaron,
    There, I clicked "add comment" too quickly and didn't address your claim of "matching the data to the theories." This is exactly the reason for the existence of the Peer Review mechanism. If we use the mantra of Dr. House: Everyone lies, therefore only the Peer Review mechanism and other mechanisms in the form of Meta Analysis help in the fight against wrongdoers and liars, and only science helps these mechanisms.

    Thanks for helping to establish this point.

    Do you accept Trope's claim that dinosaurs (like those from Jurassic Park and not a stuttering argument that says birds are actually dinosaurs) lived in the company of humans?

  13. Aaron,
    You didn't mean to, but that's what came out, which cut your credibility. Impersonation does, FYI.

    I am not going to refute anyone, it is he who has to deal with the scientific establishment. How do you deal with the scientific establishment? Through the publication of scientific articles, which undergo peer review in the relevant monthly journals. I'm sorry, there is no other way and any other way, such as writing books, is not relevant to establishing knowledge. Asimov also wrote books and invented psychohistory, so what? Is psychohistory a science? How do I know your professor isn't wrong, at best, or flat-out lying at worst? Only peer review by people knowledgeable in the field is the way to start establishing knowledge.

    Do you accept his claim that dinosaurs (like those from Jurassic Park and not a stuttering argument that says that birds are actually dinosaurs) lived in the company of humans?

    By the way, if he succeeds in proving that dinosaurs lived in the company of humans, great. It won't strengthen the existence of the Creator by an inch, but it will be totally cool.

    As for my innocence? I would expect them to yell at me that I'm wrong, and that scientists are nice people who just want to contribute and how dare I claim that they want to be famous as much as humans and in order to be famous in a big way, you have to refute the claims of the previous generation. This may be an overly comprehensive and exaggerated argument, but it is certainly not innocent. vice versa.

  14. Shmulik, I did not intend to attribute the article to me at all.
    You are very naive about some scientists. My close friends are excellent scientists and I hear and also read in the media about matching data to theories.
    You can read Prof. Troup's book, who is a scientist, and refute him instead of just denying. This will be serious.

  15. Aaron,
    At least say that this wonderful response is not yours but from
    I especially liked the paragraph:
    "Trop also refers to the issue of dinosaurs and points out that the assertion that these are creatures that are 65 million years old is unfounded because science does not refer to the findings presented in various museums around the world according to which there were dinosaurs that lived at the same time as humans."

    There used to be the claim that the bones of the dinosaurs were buried in the sand to test the strength of the believers' faith and today we are informed that the dinosaurs actually lived with us, and that is what is beautiful about the propagandists of the religion. No matter what the facts and data are, it is always possible to reverse engineer any fact so that it fits the nonsense that the Sages said.

    Aaron, do you really believe that museums have findings that science chooses to ignore? You don't understand that science is actually a body of knowledge created by countless scientists whose dream is to spread and the biggest publicity is done by refuting the "current theory" so that if there were findings like this, in museums, all the scientists in the world would write about them like the dinosaur that just passed by a pen About an alien who happened to walk by and tear him apart?
    You really don't get it? If you can count on anything, it's the desire to be famous and rich, just like Prof Troup is trying to do.

  16. 'Evolution - a far-fetched and unfounded theory'

    In his book 'The Enigma of Existence', Prof. Troup unravels the theory of evolution and proves: it is a method without a probabilistic and scientific basis designed to enable a fight against religion.

    These days, Prof. Moshe Troup's poignant book 'The Enigma of Existence' is being published (in a second, expanded and elegant edition) in which he explains the theory of evolution mathematically, physically and in other ways.

    Prof. Troup, a member of Ariel University and Tel Hai College, and formerly a researcher at a number of universities around the world, many in the academy stood up to him when he published the first edition of the book, and it seems that the re-publishing will also not be received with applause by the staunch believers of the theory of evolution, which he calls a "false theory" and its believers as holding their position with delusional determination.

    In the Channel 7 diary, we spoke with Prof. Troup about his new and upcoming book, as well as how the book was received in the academic world.

    At the very beginning of his words, Troup clarifies that in order to reach his conclusions, he examined the issue according to scientific parameters that require a probabilistic examination of any theory, especially when there is no evidence and it is about events that occurred in the past, and here it turns out that "there is no mathematical probability that can allow the existence of evolution."

    Troup explains that the theory that has become the property of millions of people around the world lacks any probability starting from the development of simple materials to more complex ones, such as in the issue of the appearance of multi-celled life and so on. The probability that such developments as described by evolution will take place is at the level of one in ten million.

    In his book, Prof. Troup analyzes the claims at length and dismantles them one by one in laboratory scientific ways. In a conversation with him, he states that those who sanctified and sanctify the theory of evolution do and did so as part of the campaign against the religious concept that requires creation by a creator. They could not accept this statement and therefore developed a theory that does not meet any scientific scale and measure and turned it into a dominant hegemonic concept. Troup points out that the beginning of the development of the theory, a little before Darwin, was during the struggle in the church and its concepts and in fact it is a part of this struggle.

    In his opinion, although the things were accepted by the common people, they never stood the scientific test.

    As for the nature of the book, an in-depth, research, academic character that does not make assumptions to the reader, Prof. Troup says that although it is data presented from a scientific point of view, nevertheless, the reader who is not subject to the world of academia will be able to find whole chapters that are understandable and readable even for him, as well as highlighted sections During the chapters, which are also arranged in an easy and convenient way. This is apart from the summary pages that explain things clearly even to those who are not in the depths of physics and nature research.

    Later in his speech, Prof. Troup also referred to Prof. Natan Aviezer's book Berashit Bara, the book in which he draws a parallel between what was said at the beginning of the book of Genesis and the theory of evolution. This approach seeks to establish that there is no real disagreement between the theory of evolution and what is stated in the Torah. Trope does not accept this approach. In his opinion, Prof. Aviezer relied on the verses alone and disconnected them from the Sage's interpretation, and in addition, he does not accept the approach stating that there was indeed a development. According to him, it is wrong to say these things neither in an academic dimension nor in a religious spiritual dimension.

    He points out that Prof. Aviezer does explain that there is no probabilistic possibility for the theory of development, yet he tries to find a match between this opinion and what is said in the Torah, "because the scientists say". Troup is not ready from the beginning to accept the theory and give it justification since it is not probabilistic and not completely proven.

    In his words, Troup also referred to some of the issues presented in his book. One of them is the question of primitive creatures found in earlier layers while more complex creatures were found in upper and later layers. According to him, the reason for this is simply that the primitive creatures are numerous in scope and infinitely faster in their rate of reproduction than the complex ones, and for that reason they are found wherever a search has been made.

    As for the determination of science about hundreds of millions of years of the existence of the layers, Trop challenges this determination and defines it as irrelevant. This is because the data being examined depends, among other things, on cosmic data and the rate of reactions that may have been different in the past than today, an assessment that cannot be defined as less grounded than the theory of evolution.

    Troup also refers to the issue of dinosaurs and points out that the assertion that these are creatures that are 65 million years old is unfounded because science does not refer to the findings presented in various museums around the world according to which there were dinosaurs that lived at the same time as humans.

    In his opinion, the dinosaurs can certainly be the creatures whose origin is a hybrid between animals and in the generation of the flood, as the Sages taught, Rabbah rescinded the law of the perpetrators of the Hams between man and the animals, leaving aside the creatures he created from the beginning and for whom he intended in the creation of the world.

  17. R. H. Rafaim
    This is precisely the conception of the idea of ​​redemption in the eyes of Judaism,
    When the Messiah comes there will be one religion and everyone will recognize one God and one power

  18. Ehud Amir
    The religions that really exist are superficial to say the least. But also lack of religion in the sense of lack of traditional culture is nothing more than the ends where the previous religions end.
    Do you want global fun? Invent a religion that will unite all religions so that they all live together under the belief of God or whatever you want.

    or that..
    No one will live.

  19. For the original: (1) If everything was created, and if there is a creator, who created him? After all, according to you, everything was created. I'm waiting for an answer. (2) True. The reality of the Creator cannot be refuted. In the same way, it is impossible to disprove the universal assumption that there is a great and terrible god, made entirely of spaghetti, flying through space and determining the laws of nature. You are welcome to refute this assumption. It is permissible to use Russell's teapot theory. (3) Okay, let's say there is a creator. Does this assumption advance us in the exploration of the cosmos, in curing diseases, in solving the problems of air pollution, the population explosion, global warming, the melting of the ice at the poles and the rise of the water level and the mass death of the bees that pollinate most of the plants from which the food is produced from which humanity exists, including you and me? (4) I would not care about the amusements of thought and the theological quackery - which indicates only its hallucinatory owner and not the universe it claims to describe - if all of these were not an existential danger to the future of the human race, in the religious violence that some of them encourage, by diverting man from research that would advance the Humanity is subject to vain beliefs, in that they prevent many good people from fulfilling their artistic, literary and cultural abilities - from fulfilling themselves in the world - by the few coercions and prohibitions of religious tyrannies of all kinds.

  20. to alice
    There is a fundamental difference between the Christian view and the Jewish view. All that is in this video is the general view that there is a belief in the Creator (which, by the way, to this day we have not come across someone who tried to disprove the reality of the Creator. While there is an entire universe with complete laws that proves that there must be something ancient that drives the system In rational legality which we constantly learn with our limited minds, of course only ignorant people are unable to notice this because of blindness or a partial deficiency in their perception of the picture
    Including on this I would add your introduction hahaha...ignorance

  21. Nissim, you yourself admit that this is a theory and as much as there will be a majority who believe that this is indeed the correct theory, it will still be a theory. To you, the world's greatest thinker actually believes that the world was indeed created by a creator. So who is the real majority?

  22. די
    No, you are not right. The debates surrounding the Big Bang are about the first trillionth of a second. After this time the theory is accepted by every scientist I know who understands the subject.

    Regarding evolution there is no debate in science at all. The process is understandable and proven "beyond any reasonable doubt". We do not know all the details of the beginning of the process. I mean we don't know exactly what the first "replicator" was. It is very possible that we will never know - and this is because there are several reasonable candidates and we will not be able to determine with certainty who is the right one.

    Understand - there is of course no "certainty" in science. But, the scientific theory that comes closest to this is the theory of evolution. The only way to contradict it is a "smoking gun" in the hands of God himself....

  23. It's a shame that they connect two things together like in this article. By the words, "science and evolution" in science there are two matters one is exact science ie experiment and result. And the other side is the lighting science. Like the big bang theory for which we have no scientific and experimental way if those nativists are starting to check that it was indeed the big bang that led to the creation of the universe, the fact is that there are renowned scientists who bring additional theories. But the more accepted among many is the theory of the bang, so naturally there will be more who try to prove and are still trying to prove the existence and truth of the theory, see Higgs particle value. But the theory will still remain a theory because of the lack of laboratory conditions to prove its truth. The same concerns regarding the theory of evolutionary development. Again, in this theory, we cling to the findings that there are still missing links. And the explanation for this theory is that the missing links have not yet been found, and this is still a theory and not a certainty that has been proven in an experiment under the same conditions.

  24. my son
    You said a lot of bullshit…… There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Paul Brown is a moron who really believes in bullshit.

    Even in the enlightened state of Israel there was a chief scientist in the Ministry of Education who denied evolution. I won't bother to mention the name of the fool...

  25. Don't forget that politics in countries with a government of indirect democracy is based on a rift between different groups in society

  26. My son, I completely disagree with you, when a person in the position of Paul Brown declares such nonsense in a public way, it certainly has an effect on his listeners and supporters and this may create a negative drift in the direction of religious extremism and actions against science (such as the opposition of religious people to research on stem cells).

    It's sad that things like this are happening in 2013, elected people who irrationally deny reality.

  27. It means nothing, politicians will always say what their electorate wants to hear, not what they really think or will do.
    Politicians are the biggest liars, and they usually do the opposite of what they say.
    Their words are worthless.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.